---

One Thing I Love: Lambos checks off a lot of the boxes that you look for in a transitional defender. He’s a poised passer that can evade forechecking pressure and get the puck moving forwards with consistency.

If he can make these types of plays at the NHL level, he will be successful.

Swing Skill: Lambos isn’t a major offensive contributor, largely in part because he lacks aggressiveness and an attack mindset on zone entries. This shot is never going to go in; get those feet moving down the wall and try to find a passing option instead. Defencemen should be jumping at opportunities to get involved below the tops of the circles, not killing rushes by firing extremely low percentage shots.

Don’t like to see defencemen shy away from continuing down the wall and playing like a forward.

Development: First off, I’d challenge Lambos to try to activate below the circles as much as he possibly can. It’s hard to make plays from just past the blueline; opportunities often only start to open up once the defence is driven back and spread apart. Shots and pass attempts on the rush from that area between the top of the circle and the blueline should be kept to a minimum. An assortment of rush drills would help him– increased comfort translates to increased confidence and aggressiveness. I think Lambos has the puck skills and the passing chops to play down low in the offensive zone; he just doesn’t do it very frequently. Inverted rushes to challenge him to get creative in how he can stay involved in the play as the initial puckcarrier and try to drive the puck down low against a stronger defensive core could be worth a try as well.

Projection:
Top-end: Top-pair defenceman with elite transition impact and a steady all-around game, but probably only mild offensive influence.
Mid-level: Top-four blueliner with a dependable, pass-heavy style. Offensive impact stems only from transition work.
Low-end: Bottom-pair defencemen with good results in sheltered minutes. Low-end outlook strikes me as Travis Dermott-like.

Methodology:
I have a tier separating Lambos, ranked 9th, from William Eklund, ranked 8th. I was tempted to place Lambos up in that tier, but I just don’t think he matches the outlook of those big three defenders at the top (I hope you know who they are by now). In terms of mid-level outcome, Lambos might actually not be far off— I think he could be a reliable puck-mover in a top-four. And whereas I can conjure scenarios where any one of Hughes, Clarke, or Power becomes a true #1 defenceman with ideal development, I think Lambos’ absolute max will be as a top-pair guy, even then as one without a lot of offensive weight. He’s just a half-step down with his outcomes— we’re gonna call that enough to finally drop down to our second tier here.

---

One Thing I Love: Pastujov is deceptively skilled; I don’t think his tools really stand out to many as top-level, but he dominated the NTDP’s competition through excellent habits and deceiving ability. Most important for him, I think, was his ability to make plays under pressure with a defender in his space– Pastujov’s capacity to find a continuation play and maintain possession for his team in situations where a lot of players would turn the puck over ended in points for him quite frequently.

Very similar: hips in front, defender can’t make a play on the puck, quick backhand pass to a teammate. This time, Pastujov gets to bang in the rebound.

I wanted to include a really good solo effort clip in here to highlight that Pastujov does have high-end skill, it just isn’t as consistently visible as with some other prospects. Still also a nice habit play here: after beating defender #1 wide, he takes a step or two inside to get his body in front and prevent that defender from taking any last-second chops at his stick.

This one-hand pass to bypass the last line of defence creates an easy tap-in goal for Pastujov.

Another Thing I Love: Here’s another really useful habit. Pastujov has a very keen eye for passing lanes, understanding that making yourself an option is more than just blindly driving the net. He sees passing lanes and understands that he’s only an option when he’s at the end of one. Look at him delay here, sitting out in space and waiting for that lane to open up.

Similar here. He’s in no rush to get right to the net; his understanding of playmaking is more nuanced than that. It works for him.

Sitting in line with the back post, hoping for a pass across. When the lane opens up, it’s just one quick stride to get on the end of it while keeping his body open to the passer.

Watch Pastujov fight for stick position with the backdoor defender, getting body position and basically rendering his checker irrelevant.

Slips behind the defender (who ends up a little lost, that’s how you exploit a defender not facing his assignment), remains squared to the puck until he gets this pass, then pivots to face the net and finishes.

Swing Skill: Pastujov isn’t a great skater, lacking explosiveness and any sort of threatening speed off the rush. He seems to recognize this, rarely trying to beat the defence with speed. He really doesn’t try to gain speed with the purpose of using it against the defence here.

And he quickly has to abort this attempt to move down the wall after failing to create any type of separation whatsoever.

Respect to Sasha for believing in himself, but I don’t think he has much of a chance at beating many defenders to the outside like this. Looks like it ends a little painfully for him too.

Instead, Pastujov uses east-west motion, deception, puck skills, and intelligent passes to beat defenders off the rush.

Development: Ideally, Pastujov would be able to at least partially threaten with his skating as a method of complementing his slower, more creative methods of rush creation. The reason why he’s been so successful with the USNTDP is that he’s already managed to identify a variety of methods to produce offence in ways that aren’t reliant on speed, and that’s really because of his exceptional creativity and intelligence. If you’re gonna have a player with mobility concerns, that’s exactly what you’d hope they would possess to mitigate that issue. Still though– it’ll be harder to exploit NHL defenders with passes into space, sneaky puck moves, and some of the other ways Pastujov found success creating offence against majority-USHL defenders (who generally aren’t particularly good at the whole defence thing). Without speed improvement, becoming a consistent offensive contributor could be quite the uphill battle for Pastujov. I find that his stride is rather fluid and doesn’t look too bad, but he’s not creating much power with each push-off. Leg extension seems to be the most visible issue; it’s apparent even from a full-speed clip that Pastujov isn’t driving that leg down and through the ice, with a full extension behind, like he should.

This is the extent of the leg extension from that sequence.

Also– linear crossovers! Any time you’re skating in open ice it should be crossover after crossover. It’s by far the most efficient way to gather speed moving up ice.

Projection:
Top-end: Top-line winger that makes major strides as a skater (ha) while continuing to show high-level creativity, deception, and intelligent habits on a regular basis. He’s an upside guy– he has a lot of skill, it doesn’t always shine through in the most visible ways, but better skating could tie it all together into a major value package.
Mid-level: Middle-six winger whose rush productivity takes a hit against better defenders, but should still be a real smart player that makes under-the-radar plays to contribute offensively. Could be a sneaky point producer just like he is now.
Low-end: Fizzles out somewhere in the transition from NCAA to AHL at some point due to mobility issues and an inability to play fast off the rush.

Methodology:
We’ll start with this: Pastujov doesn’t always look like a top 10 prospect. More often that not, actually, he probably doesn’t— not on the surface, anyways. But I think we’ve seen enough success out of players that were written off in juniors due to various concerns by now to recognize that when a player is putting up the stats that Pastujov has, he’s earned a deeper look. I believe that, if handled properly by his drafting club, Sasha presents a terrific amount of growth potential. Yeah, he’s not the greatest skater. But that’s an improvable trait– and some of the core facets of Pastujov’s success are assets that are considerably more difficult to learn: most notably, the ability to make plays in traffic and his overall offensive intelligence. From a developmental perspective, it should be easier to build up a player of Pastujov’s mold with subpar mobility but high intelligence than to improve upon a Simon Edvinsson-type player with excellent mobility but low hockey sense. If you don’t trust your developmental staff, you probably don’t go for Pastujov. But if you trust your staff, and you want a potential high-impact player with experience leading an offence, I feel that Sasha is an excellent bet fairly high in this draft.

I rank Pastujov so highly, even over a guy like Matthew Coronato who did extremely well against mostly similar competition, because I believe that Sasha’s intelligence gives him greater upside in a proper developmental context. Matthew is a better skater than Pastujov, but if both players can fix their skating, Pastujov is even more suited for a leading offensive role than Coronato (like he played for the NTDP this past season).

---

One Thing I Love: Coronato is just an obscenely good scorer. It’s the USHL and he’s a member of the nothing short of stacked Chicago Steel, but it should not be this easy for any player to score goals at any level. Coronato’s 46 goals led the USHL (and his team) by a 15 goal margin. He can drive the puck to scoring areas himself.

And find space around the slot.

Another Thing I Love: The thing that sets Coronato apart from a bunch of the other scorers in this draft is his ability to play between checks and handle the puck through traffic. This is one of the clips from above– Coronato beats the closing elevator doors (literally ’playing between checks”) and takes the puck into the slot for a goal.

At least at the USHL level, he has an on-puck creation element as a scorer that is not very common. Hard to argue with this summation here (although I wouldn’t agree that the number one thing is his compete level, I’d probably say the number one thing is whatever he’s been doing to pot 48 goals). This is from EP Rinkside somewhere, I’ll find a link to that somewhere don’t you worry.

https://twitter.com/EPRinkside/status/1371473217962008583?s=20

Swing Skill: Translatability is a big thing for these USHL guys, especially those that are on the older side of the draft class and play on the Chicago Steel (who seem to have set up a little monopoly down there on America’s best junior hockey players). Coronato’s most valuable skill is by far his on-puck creation: his ability to play in traffic, get the puck off the wall and into the slot, and then finish around the net. Matthew should focus on maintaining those skills as he moves into the NCAA next season: skating, puck skills, slot penetration. If he can maintain that part of his game to the NCAA and eventually the NHL, Coronato has major, major upside as an offensive contributor.

Development: I really love this USHL-NCAA development pathway, or more specifically, this Chicago Steel to NCAA pathway. You start off in the Steel’s free and loose style getting to play aggressive and really refine and develop your strengths as a player; then you make a pretty significant jump to the college ranks, where you have up to four years to round out your game and hopefully eventually progress to a similar level of play against more challenging competition. I don’t expect Coronato to need four years (that Harvard degree will look pretty appealing, but so will that ELC if everything goes well). We saw Matthew Boldy, drafted in 2018, really struggle with Boston College to begin his freshman season (he was extremely unlucky over that stretch too), turn it around in a big way midyear to finish the season on an absolute tear, and then tally 31 points in 22 games as a sophomore this season before turning pro and joining the Iowa Wild in early April. Coronato will need to learn new strategies to get the puck into the slot against NCAA comp, but there should be plenty of time and a practice-heavy environment for him to figure that out.

Projection:
Top-end: Top-line winger with legitimate creation ability and potential for 25+ goals. Big-time upside guy.
Mid-level: Middle-six winger who can’t fully translate the ability to penetrate the slot and play in traffic to higher levels, but the scoring instincts and off-puck play remain strong and the on-puck skill is still mid-tier.
Low-end: Bottom-six scorer with an almost entirely off-puck oriented game.

Methodology:
I know we expect all draft eligibles with the Chicago Steel to excel, but I’m not sure Matthew Coronato quite gets his due for how good his past season was– especially considering how strong of an all-around skillset he possesses. He’s a 2002 birthdate playing for the Steel; we expected good things. But 85 points in 51 games is better than good– that was comfortably the second most on a stacked Chicago team, trailing only 2020 draft pick Sean Farrell. The guy had 48 goals in 51 games (!) AND that wasn’t in an off-puck role– Coronato has excellent puck skills and good playmaking vision and is a real threat with the puck on his stick to attack in a variety of ways. The primary knock is that Coronato isn’t a top-level skater; he’s closer to average on that front. And yes, the relatively low-level competition of the USHL might have prevented that deficiency from being a more visible issue. But he’s not a bad skater, he’s just a more average one. A Coronato who doesn’t improve as a skater should still be able to threaten coming off the wall as an on-puck creator, even if he’s not as much of an entry threat. And Matthew is still a very talented scorer who should be able to do so in any capacity. And if the skating improves, this is a forward with no broad offensive weakness.

Related
• Deep Dive: A look at Matthew Coronato’s game (Dylan Galloway, FC Hockey)

---

One Thing I Love: Sillinger has swung into an increased scoring role in the USHL after playing last season in the WHL (a standard trend in players that see a drop in competition level), but the high-level playmaking ability that he displayed last year for Medicine Hat is still present, albeit in less frequent flashes. The forward has good vision and can drive the puck into the middle of the ice.

Another Thing I Love: Sillinger had 24 goals in 31 games and can absolutely rip the puck. His shooting ability is the most visible part of his skillset and will probably be the area of his game that gets the most attention in mainstream analysis. That’s for good reason, look at this shit.

Swing Skill: Sillinger does not skate particularly well, nor does he appear focused on maintaining a fast pace or looking to utilize speed as a weapon in rush situations. Look at the inability to create any sort of space on a flat-footed, can barely even skate backwards defender here.

A lot of young guys like these inside-outside moves. I’m not really sure why: the only way it’s ever going to work is if you catch the defender with their hand in the cookie jar in an absolutely abysmal, not gonna play for the rest of the game type of way. Most of the time, you’re just doing exactly what the defender wants you to do. Players can be successful playing fast in the outside lane and then looking to make a play into the middle closer to the goal line, but you need speed change and a whole lot of quickness to do it consistently. Sillinger has neither.

Development: Sillinger’s got one of those strides where the foot speed is good and there aren’t any egregious mechanical issues, but he just doesn’t seem to be catching quite enough dig with each stride to really get going as fast as it looks like he could. Added strength would help, but Sillinger isn’t a super lean guy at 6’0/187 lbs and we see lots of skinny guys that can really zip around out there. My professional opinion as a guy with some elementary (high school, actually) physics knowledge bouncing around and absolute zero experience with biomechanics is that Sillinger’s stride lacks torque, or rotational force. Most people that know how to skate are probably familiar with a ‘C-cut’– the ‘C’ is the pattern the skate follows as it undergoes this action. It’s a big element of backwards skating– the frantically backwards-skating defender in this clip exemplifies the maneuvre quite well.

Backwards skating is very rotational based, whereas forward movement is much more linear. It’s much easier to extend your leg backwards and push off forwards than it is to extend your leg forwards and push off backwards. But incorporating rotational, ’c-cut”-like motion into a forward stride can allow a skater to dig in a little more with their edges and generate some extra power.

Projection:
Top-end: #2 centre, improves his skating and uses his all-around skillset to drive play up-ice and through the middle of the ice.
Mid-level: Top-nine scoring winger with on-puck chops and some secondary playmaking ability. Catch-and-release from the shot will be the bread and butter.
Low-end: Fringe NHLer/4th liner with a bit of a scoring touch, but the skating doesn’t catch up and the transition game falls off a cliff accordingly, killing nearly all of Sillinger’s on-puck creation ability.

Methodology:
No matter what happened this season, considering the circumstances, Sillinger probably still should have been viewed as a worthy top fifteen pick just because of the potential he displayed last year for Medicine Hat. Staying comfortably above a point per game as a 16 year old in the WHL? That isn’t common. Sillinger’s draft season was a definite success though, with him managing to still get a pretty full schedule in for the USHL’s Sioux Falls Stampede. Sillinger was very, very good at that level. USHL to NTDP is not a perfect comparison, but Sillinger’s even-strength primary points per game were right in the range of the numbers put up by players like Jack Hughes, Clayton Keller, Trevor Zegras, and Matt Boldy against USHL competition. He’s a very dangerous threat left in space around the slot– his shot is heavy and accurate, even in stride, and he has very good vision as a playmaker. If Sillinger fails, it will be because he lacks the pace to really threaten off the rush. But like with Pastujov, a good team should be trusting of their staff and willing to take high-skilled players with improvable weaknesses. And even if the skating remains an issue, Sillinger’s shot is good enough that he should be a serviceable scorer just by finding space around the slot– that keeps this bet from being a total home run swing.

I like Sillinger a lot, but I’m going with Coronato ahead. I think Coronato stepped up as a leading on-puck force on Chicago’s offence in a massive way, outperforming Sillinger in that type of driving role for his team (Coronato did, however, have the benefit of a far stronger supporting cast). I also think Coronato’s mobility issues are less of a concern than Sillinger’s– Coronato was still able to threaten off the rush, whereas Sillinger’s lack of pace was very evident and he was considerably more reliant on in-zone opportunities.

Related
• The Arsenal: Comparing Sillinger and Stankoven (Justin Froese/Greg Revak, FC Hockey)

---

One Thing I Love: Edvinsson is a really terrific skater. His burst would still be impressive in a defenceman seven inches shorter, he can step around players in the neutral zone, and his speed/size combo makes him a runaway train moving through the neutral zone. The greatest use of his mobility is his ability to beat the first forechecker– it allows his team to play 5v4 on the breakout and opens up a ton of space.

Swing Skill: Edvinsson can be prone to missed reads, slow decisions, and more than his fair share of turnovers in the neutral zone. He’s got a bit of a case of tunnel-vision carrying the puck through the NZ.

Development: Edvinsson’s first priority needs to be his hockey sense. His reads are slow, sometimes they’re wrong, he can be tunnel-visioned, and all those deficiencies can be glaringly obvious at times. From my Edvinsson breakdown, some talk on developing hockey IQ in practice settings:

Projection:
Top-end: Top-pair defenceman, really makes strides in the IQ department. Not a big o-zone contributor, but a significant positive impact in transition.
Mid-level: #4 defenceman, develops some strategies to counter his processing deficiencies.
Low-end: SHL lifer, doesn’t figure out his reads and remains extremely turnover-prone.

Methodology:
This is a fun one. I’ve written a lot of words on Edvinsson over the year, because few archetypes are more interesting than the massive, smooth skating defenceman with questionable hockey sense. It’s a player that is so tantalizing, but also one who could so easily disappoint. I don’t think Edvinsson will disappoint the realistic fan– I project him as a top-four defender, even if it’s down towards the #4 hole– but I do expect him to miss the expectations given to him by some outlets who rank him very highly and maybe even compare him straight-up to a certain defenceman on the back-to-back Stanley Cup Champions. There is a lot, and I mean a looot, of work that Edvinsson will need to do to reach legitimate top-pair heights, and little of it is easy. I don’t think it’s impossible, but developing stronger decision-making is not the most common thing. I definitely would not consider Edvinsson to be with our top trio of defencemen. He could be capable of reaching a similar ceiling, but it’s far more of a long shot for the Swede than for the others. More likely, he’ll be a second-pair defenceman that can border on frustrating at times. Possibly, he’ll be a below-replacement level defender who somehow gets significant minutes because of his size/skating, which would be even worse for his team than straight up busting altogether. But for an intelligent team with a development system that is ahead of the curve on matters like hockey sense, Edvinsson could be a very nice bet. In the teens, that’s a good bet to make. In the top ten, I think you can get guys with similar upside but far less risk.

Related
• https://nhlentrydraft.com/news/2021-nhl-draft-deep-dive-simon-edvinsson/
• Deep Dive: A look into Simon Edvinsson’s game (Viktor Bergman, FC Hockey)

---

One Thing I Love: Behrens is all about quick, efficient passes in transition. He’s all about getting the puck moving up ice as fast as possible and processes the game quickly enough to make one or two touch passes.

Swing Skill: I’m all about multi-dimensionality in transition. Elite transitional defenders can read and respond to just about anything the forecheck throws at them; that requires versatility and the ability to play at multiple speeds. Behrens is really good at fast plays to the first available option. But high-level, NHL forechecks are really good at showing a flash of opportunity before swallowing a player up as soon as the puck is played– they might leave a winger open on the wall with F3 ready to pounce as soon as their opponent takes the bait. Behrens can occasionally fall victim to that. He tries to go fast up the wall here, but the recipient has multiple opponents on his back.

Development: I’d have two primary developmental focuses for Behrens: diversify his transition game (as we went over right above) and learn to better utilize his size. We’ll get to the transition game in a second– let’s talk about Behrens size. He’s 5’9”. That’s small. How do you mitigate a small frame? Easy answer: add weight. Behrens is 174 pounds. How much weight and stability can he add without impacting his mobility? I’m no strength coach; Behrens should work with somebody who is. But Jared Spurgeon, the king of small NHL defencemen, actually weighs less than Behrens does. Greg Revak showed me this excellent video when we collaborated on an Emil Andrae piece earlier this year. Adopting some of these tactics could assist Behrens in the corners.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEO3uJvGxxM&feature=youtu.be

As for transition: how does a player that prefers quick, fast plays learn to identify when to play a slower, more deliberative style? There are times in a game for both. Behren’s focus should be looking to use the weak side of the ice more frequently– that’s generally how you go against the grain of the forecheck and find open options in the transition game. Perhaps some of those 5v6 breakout drills from the Brandt Clarke development section could be of assistance here. Part of the issue here might be a little sluggish processing speed– he gets locked in on his first read and doesn’t assess the play fast enough to reevaluate, take a half-second, and move the puck to open space.

Projection:
Top-end: A fringe top-pair defenceman that can make quick, efficient plays in the face of a forecheck. Picks up some puck retrieval strategies in the corners and accelerates his processing with the puck.
Mid-level: #4 defenceman that can make those quick passes and use his mobility to join the offence, but can be bothered by well-executed neutral zone traps that bring out the worst of his up-paced style.
Low-end: At 5’9”, Behrens will still be facing an uphill battle to crack the NHL even with the direction of the game. If he’s not at least proficient in transition, I’m not sure he’ll ever make the league full time.

Methodology:
I love this defensive class. You’ve got your high-impact trio at the top, you’ve got a guy in Carson Lambos who really isn’t very far off from that group, then Simon Edvinsson’s whos all pizzazz and upside but a little scary too, and now we get a guy with a little less pizzazz and a little less upside, but potential to be a really dependable and efficient top-four player. Behrens’ pace in transition should bode well for his transition to higher levels. NHL forecheckers get in on you a lot faster than those in the USHL or NCAA, but Behrens already looks to move the puck very quickly on the breakout. When your goal is to move the puck up ice, why hold onto it for any longer than you need to? It’s those fast, smart passes that make Behrens seem like a safe bet to become a top-four defenceman. As long as he retains that quickness, he should be competent in transition even against the opponent’s better forwards. He might not be a major offensive contributor nor the most steadfast defender, but a defenceman who can get the puck moving up ice fast is generally a successful one. We’re in the tier now where these guys are solid bets to be top-sixers or top-four defenders– I definitely think that’s the right placing for Behrens, even if he gets a little bit discounted for his size by some sources (let’s not be silly, we know better by now). Behrens slots in right behind Edvinsson because the Swede, as I said, offers a similar realistic projection but could also be a pretty excellent player if he fixes his problem areas.

---

One Thing I Love: Lucius is a brilliant scorer, tallying more than a goal per game for the U18s. He spends a lot of time around the net and excels at sneaking into open ice, ready to receive passes and deposit pucks into the net.

Swing Skill: How will Lucius’ scoring game translate to higher levels? He has a bit of a weird scoring profile– not only do the vast majority of Lucius’ goals stem from his off-puck play, but they are also very concentrated around the net. Several of his 13 goals came from within the crease itself. He’s not scoring super frequently on one-timers from the circles or high slot catch-and-releases– the type of shots that defences are often willing to concede– but rather tap-ins and short-range shots from the immediate slot. Top-tier scorers tend to have extended range; they are able to consistently score from outside of that high-danger box right in front of the net and are able to generate additional quality scoring chances relative to their finishing ability as a result. Lucius hasn’t demonstrated any type of abnormal range. My concern: against tighter defences at higher levels, Lucius’ high-danger chances will decrease. If he can’t shift his shot locations back into space further from the net, his shots, scoring chances, and goals will fall into the ground.

Development: Short-term, Lucius should be looking to extend his range and learn when to shoot from around the circles rather than hunt out space along the edge of the crease. Long-term, he should be hoping to improve his on-puck creation and scoring game to grow beyond a guy that simply searches for open space and buries the puck against a shifting goaltender. I don’t have a lot to offer as to adding power to the shot: you add weight and you work with a skills coach that knows more about shooting mechanics than I do. As for the on-puck creation, Lucius has shown some flashes of ability that he should try to replicate more frequently. Look at the hands here!

I don’t think we saw Lucius try to take the puck into the slot enough this season for a guy with this level of hands and release.

Projection:
Top-end: Top-six winger that can pop 20+ goals. Becomes a steady one-time threat and can play that role on a powerplay.
Mid-level: Third-line winger that can get to his spots around the net and score on a consistent basis, but he isn’t enough of an on-puck threat nor a danger from far out enough to be particularly worrying for a defence or goaltender.
Low-end: Doesn’t present enough high-leverage skill and can’t get to scoring spots frequently enough to be very useful against tighter NHL defences. Fringe NHLer.

Methodology:
Lucius played the Cole Caufield/Oliver Wahlstrom ‘play with good players and score an obscene amount of goals’ role for the NTDP, going for 13 goals in the 13 games that he played (Chaz missed a good chunk of time due to injury). He did that a little bit differently than Caufield or Wahlstrom did though– I still remember clips from those guys’ respective draft years of them absolutely sniping, just picking corners like it’s nothing. Lucius doesn’t actually look as effortless as a scorer. He doesn’t have elite scoring range, nor does he love the one-timer. Instead, he’s really good at handling pucks in the slot and finishing from dangerous areas. There’s little doubt in my mind that Lucius will be a high-level finisher in those spots as an NHLer, he’s got the instincts, the release, and the hands to translate that ability pretty straightforwardly. But I don’t think this is a guy that presents upside as an elite scorer, because he just doesn’t have the scoring range for that. Auston Matthews is the game’s best scorer because his shot is as dangerous from the ringette line as many players are from the immediate slot. Lucius’ shot does not fit that bill. I also don’t think Lucius presents any other major strengths as an offensive player– he’s closer to average in other facets. He can make passes in front of him and be involved as a playmaker, but he’s not a high-level passer. He can occasionally work pucks into the middle lane himself, but he’s not explosive or strong enough to work through defenders consistently. Because of that, Lucius seems fated for that middle-sixey off-puck scoring role. He could function in a top-six if a team needs some extra scoring punch, but he won’t be any sort of major driver of play.

---

One Thing I Love: On-puck creation is a scarce and valuable ability that tends to manifest under three skill umbrellas: skating, puck skills, and passing. Lysell checks off two of those categories– skating and puck skills– and flashes positive arrows as a secondary-trait playmaker. The Swede is an explosive skater that moves really well side-to-side, and he’s able to attack defenders in space and in one-on-one rush scenarios. Fast north-south plays with room to wheel, then looking to mix in lateral movement when he comes face-to-face with a defender– that’s how you create off the rush.

Swing Skill: Lysell isn’t a poor passer by any means, but he isn’t an advanced one either: the forward’s assists often result from him ’settling” for a pass only after his own options with the puck are exhausted and he lacks the ability to make advanced reads beyond the option that is usually immediately in front of him. Elite playmakers look to create isolated odd-man situations and stretch defences; Lysell looks to take the puck to the slot himself and will usually go pass only if it’s a pre-existing lane to a player in his sight line. Now, Lysell’s NHL identity won’t be ’elite playmaker”, but he would benefit from expanding his arsenal as a passer and learn when to move the pass higher up on his read progression checklist. This is the most advanced passing read that resulted in an assist for him this year.

He sees his teammate breaking into space and delivers the puck on time, but it’s still an example of Lysell looking to pass only after he’s angled off and has nowhere to go himself. Developing more of a proactive passing touch rather than a reactive style would round out Lysell’s on-puck creation profile and raise his ceiling as an offensive contributor.

Development: Passing is a highly instinctual skill, but it should be possible to use game-style playmaking drills to expand Lysell’s pattern-recognition and help him identify certain situations where the pass should become one of his first reads. I think Lysell could really benefit from increased preference to the pass on rush opportunities where his team doesn’t have a numerical advantage– watch him throw low-danger shots on net from the wing on these two plays here.

An offence’s best chance at a real chance in these types of situations is often one of two options: try to play the puck into space for a guy driving the net to deflect it on net, or drive the defence back with speed and look to pass back to a late man joining the play. Those are both generally better choices than an outside-the-dot shot that basically only serves to pad the goaltender’s save percentage. I like this concept of inverted rushes as a possible practice solution– rather than a typical odd-man rush where the offence outnumbers the defence (2-on-1, 3-on-2, etc), an inverted rush gives the defence the numerical advantage (1-on-2, 2-on-3). Typically, the extra defender will end up flocking towards the puck-carrier, forcing him to adopt a pass-first look. The additional defensive support should also encourage creativity and problem-solving from the attackers as the try to spread the defence with tip plays, give-and-gos, and other actions.

Projection:
Top-end: Lysell’s a high-ceiling guy– top-line winger with on-puck creation and line-driving ability.
Mid-level: Middle-six winger with real scoring and finishing ability, but not well-rounded enough as an on-puck creator to play at an elite level.
Low-end: SHL lifer.

Methodology:
Lysell’s got a lot of puck skill and he can be really scary working off the rush. You’ve seen some of those clips above. By puck skills, the guy’s one of the best in the draft. By potential to pull off a highlight play, Lysell might be the absolute best in the draft. I love to bet on skill, but I’m not particularly high on Lysell. That’s because the Swedish forward doesn’t have wide-ranging, versatile skill. His puck skills and skating are exceptional off the rush, but he doesn’t possess the puck nearly as well in the cycle game when set up in the offensive zone. When defended well, he can get stuck out on the wall and struggle to find the middle lane. You can make a living in the NHL as a rather rush-centric player, but it’s a little more difficult to create the consistent offence expected of a top-line winger. That’s why I think Lysell is more likely to top out in a middle-six role, where he can do his thing off the rush, make some plays when given space off the wall. He won’t need to frequently face the opponent’s best defenders nor will he be expected to drastically influence the game every single night. Maybe we’ll have to modify the ’bet on skill” adage to ’bet on versatile skill”. That’s still a good player though, and even if Lysell’s true ability tops out at that level, there could still be an opportunity to sneak him up onto the wing of a fast playmaker within the top-six without too much trouble.